Subscribe to Posts
three memes I can’t let go of: evangelical, religion, love
Words are very potent things. They carry things like truth in them. They can function as “memes.” Memes are bits of cultural data that are analogous to genes. They get transferred from person to person, outlasting persons and seem to have a life of their own. They can be as difficult to shake off as your grandaddy’s DNA. I’ve made my peace with that. There are three words that I’ve accepted and despite pressure from many quarters don’t wish to relegate to the word bin of history: evangelical, religion, and love.
Evangelical, now that’s a word in fashion right now, isn’t it? I think not. I know many evangelicals who would like nothing better than to ditch the word entirely. They would, if they could, plunge it deep beneath the waters of memory, so that it could never surface again. I understand. The word has been badly beaten, bruised, stained, stretched and besmirched. My brother-in-law Bill who attends an evangelical church says the word is not a spiritual word at all. It is a political word and he wants nothing to do with it. Bill’s a pretty thoughtful guy, but he’s been unable to convince me.
I think the word is a comely adjective, having to do with the evangel, the good news. I think the word describes those who have attempted to organize their lives around this message, or more accurately, around the messenger of this message, the good news himself.
OK, so I use it carefully, and I don’t trot it out without time to explain what I mean by it. But I don’t want to stop using it because I don’t want to stop being evangelical. I’d rather be evangelical than be called evangelical, because the word carries something precious. It carries truth.
Religion is another such word. My brother-in-law told me about a book he’s reading by Greg Boyd called Repenting of Religion. I’ve read one book by Greg Boyd and thought it was great. I bet this one is good too. I plan to read it. And I plan to keep using the word “religion” from time to time. I think it’s another fine word that has to do with making connections, from the latin root, ligare, from whence we derive “ligament,” a connective tissue.
I believe that Jesus came to reform religion, not ban it. I suppose if it were late at night and we were talking in a college dormitory room, I could be convinced that a time is coming when the word religion won’t be useful or necessary, when all the world is one and everything is perfectly integrated such that all distinctions will be completely unnecessary. Maybe. But not yet. So I’m happy to limp along with the word just like the brother of Jesus did when he wrote: “true religion is taking care of the widows and orphans and keeping up your resistance to the distorting effect of the bent world.”
I realize that this is a fan club with few members, but count me in for now.
And finally, this mushy word love that is rumored to have lost its value. I don’t think a word like love can give up the ghost quite so easily. C.S. Lewis said that evil doesn’t have a creative bone in its unbody. All evil can do is twist and bend and distort. The best words are in for the most aggressive attempts to twist, bend and distort, I suppose. Love is one of those words. God is love.
I know the unease around this word, love. I have felt it myself. I’ve been tempted to nervously and carefully explain what I mean by the word and what I don’t mean by the word, but when you’re done with all that, sometimes the word itself is lost. The thing itself doesn’t get clarified around all that verbal caution. And it’s the word I think of without any footnotes attached when I think of my wife, for example. Or my kids, each one. And many others. There’s just no other word that will do. When I feel myself under the influence of God, I feel as though I am being pickled in love.
The best things in life are the things that can be misunderstood. If we spend to much time making sure that we’re not misunderstood, we might not use any words. Get out there, live your life, and hopefully, you’ll be misunderstood.
Too much verbal back-pedaling means you’re not getting anywhere. I see a lot of that going on with this word love and it makes me nervous.
Explaining yourself, clarifying yourself–I do it too, but when I do, I don’t like myself as well.
I think I’m being my best self when I’m willing to be misunderstood and don’t feel any compulsion to explain myself.
Like Jesus before Pilate. Who could have written that line or made it up? Jesus stood silent. I read that for the first time and didn’t understand it, but fell in love with the man on the spot.
Tags: evangelical, love, meme, religion, words
April 1st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Refreshing to hear. Especially in these days of forced political correctness.
Would this apply also to sensitive racial words?
My pastor back in PA was African American…a South African white man.
Am I a Brazilian American?
Then again, I guess that has to be balanced with sensitivity to the audience. We certainly don’t use some words society freely used in the past.
I had a good friend who was Vietnamese and referred to himself as ‘Oriental’. I understand the proepr word now is ‘Asian’.
The rebellious part of me wants to say ‘to hell with political correctness, I will speak as I want to.’ The more sensitive part (which I hope is informed by the Holy Spirit) makes me hesitate to use some words that may be offensive. But how far do I carry this?
April 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
\
Ken, when you speak of “religion”, which type of religion are you speaking of, authoritarian or humanistic?
“The essential element in authoritarian religion and in the authoritarian religious experience is the surrender to a power transcending man. The main virtue of this type of religion is obedience, its cardinal sin is disobedience. Just as the deity is conceived as omnipotent or omniscient, man is conceived as being powerless and insignificant. Only as he can gain grace or help from the deity can he feel strength.”
Humanistic religion, on the other hand,
“is centered around man and his strength. Man must develop his power of reason in order to understand himself, his relationship to his fellow men and his position in the universe. He must recognize the truth, both with regard to his limitations and potentialities. He must develop his powers of love for others as well as for himself and experience the solidarity of all living beings. Man’s aim in humanistic religion is to achieve the greatest strength, not the greatest powerlessness; virtue is self-realization, not obedience. Faith is certainty of conviction based on one’s own experience of thought and feeling, not assent to propositions on credit of the proposer. The prevailing mood is that of joy, while the prevailing mood in authoritarian religion is that of sorrow and guilt.”
- quotes from Erich Fromm (1900-1980), social psychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
This resonates with me a lot. I helped somebody out this week in a really small way and someone misunderstood what I’d done and it has dragged on all week me explaining myself over and over and them refusing the explanation. I wish I’d just shouldered it. Thanks!
April 1st, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Mark, I’m talking about authoritarian religion, if I had to choose between the two that Fromm sets up. Though I wonder if Eric Fromm has had the experience of a transcendent God that one surrenders to (the heart of his “authoritarian religion”). It’s not how I would describe the experience. I think it does lead to a sense of smallness, but not insignificance. Nor would I describe the prevailing mood as sorrow and guilt. I suppose a great deal depends on the nature of the transcendent power one is surrendering to. He might be referring to a different authoritarian power than I would want to surrender to.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Ken, I really, really, really like this post.
I guess the scripture that resounds in my heart more than any other most times is “he who is forgiven much, loves much”. My obedience to Him is based on my absolute love for the one who has forgiven me of my sin. I love Him. I’m crazy about Him. I want to obey Him; not out of obligation, but out of love.
Thanks for the reminder!
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 am
Ken, I used to be a zealous, born-again, bible-believing, spirit-filled, baptized-in-the-Spirit, tongues-speaking, prophecy-speaking christian, for about the first 10 years of my adult life. I used to believe in, trust in, rely on, and adhere to the reality of my “personal experience of Jesus and of God.”
God was to me a father image, and Jesus a brother and friend image. Those images were at bottom both infantile and neurotic. Those beliefs eventually became dysfunctional for me and alienated me from myself. My “experiences of Jesus and God” had been illusions, the products of my own wish-fulfillments, a fantasy structure from which I had to be set free in order to grow to psychological and emotional maturity.
Today I am free of those internal illusions, and I encourage you to free yourself as well.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Mark, the humanistic religion you describe seems to ascribe everything to the self. While the authoritarian version seems to be more like a master/slave arrangement.
It seems to me that biblical view of religion has elements of both of the extremes you proposed. On one hand, followers of Jesus are called to use their powers of reasoning and their God given intellect to ‘work out’ their salvation. There are also many instances where a believer encouraged to see God as a benevolent, non tyrannical master, even to the point where fear is looked down on as imperfect.
On the other hand, I think lest we become too cocky, there are also many references reminding us to remember that we are still very limited in our understanding and capabilities. I think the book of Job does a great ‘job’ in this side of the balance, where we see God basically asserting His authority over us.
So I am left with a picture that shows me a situation where we have a God who has the right run an authoritarian regime, but has chosen not to because of His love for us.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Ken, Mark, Happylad and Joao, I’d like to weigh in on the topic of authoritarian vs humanistic religion, if I may, by quoting from a sermon by David Jorgensen entitled “Two Kinds of Religion”.
“Authoritarian religion:
- belief in a higher power than oneself, not just any higher power, but one which is entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship
- this entitlement derives not from the moral authority of the power, not from love or justice, but in the plain fact that it has the power to reward and punish
- humankind is conceived of as powerless and can only achieve power through complete submission, through which process power is bestowed
- therefore the cardinal virtue is obedience
“Humanistic religion:
- centers around the powers of humankind, chief among them being the power of reason and the power to love others as well as ourselves
- the aim is to achieve the greatest strength, not the greatest weakness
- faith is conviction founded not on propositions handed down by an authority (or set of authorities), but on one’s conscience
- the cardinal virtue is self-realization
“Some examples of these kinds of religion:
- the theocratic religion of ancient Israel = authoritarian
- the religion of the prophets of ancient Israel – Isaiah, Micah, and so forth = humanistic
- the temple worship in Jerusalem of two millenia ago = authoritarian
- the religion preached by Jesus = humanistic
- the Calvinist theology of this church two hundred years ago = authoritarian
- the theology of Emerson (some of whose language I adapted for our prayer) = humanistic
“Notice in this way of looking at religion, use of God language can be either authoritarian or humanistic.”
http://www.firstparishcambridge.org/?q=node/256
So the theocratic religion of ancient Israel and the temple worship in Jerusalem were authoritarian, while the religion of the prophets of ancient Israel and the religion preached by Jesus were humanistic. Hmmm…
This makes me wonder why you, Ken, chose authoritarian religion [with qualifications] over humanistic religion when presented with a choice between the two, instead of choosing either (a)humanistic religion [with qualifications] over authoritarian religion, or (b)an amalgamation of the two, as Joao did. Perhaps, Ken, your deep-rooted, hard-wired psychological personality type includes elements of authoritarianism that you have not yet fully repented of, or perhaps you just didn’t realize that amalgamation was an alternative available to you at the time. I wonder what Jesus would have answered to Mark’s query regarding the various elements of authoritarian vs humanistic religion?
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
ex-christian
Can you provide an example of a turning point from a faith in Christ? What drove it? What was your primary motivator to follow Christ and go through all you experienced? What event/thought started the cracks in your faith that led to your current opinion concerning the Christian faith?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Words are so essential–and so problematic. Your defense of the word ‘evangelical’ reminds me of one of my favorites: ‘charismatic.’ In my head, I still use it the way we did in the 70’s–’believing in and practicing the biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit.’ Nothing particularly noxious about that. But use it around some ‘evangelicals’ these days and you’ve suddenly said a whole bunch of stuff you didn’t mean.
While I aspire to rise above caring too much about whether I’ve been understood, it still seems to me that–since the whole point of communication is understanding–it behooves me to learn the dialect of the people I’m trying to communicate with. It pains me to forsake a perfectly good word with a perfectly good Greek root and a perfectly useful meaning, but that’s why I pray the Serenity Prayer. It’s way easier to speak another’s language (even with an accent) than to insist that a stubborn audience use my definitions.
At the same time, I very much appreciate an effort to preserve the integrity of a good word’s meaning by teaching it. I imagine the spoiling of many words is, after all, the effect of an enemy campaign and well worth opposing.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 am
M, excellent post, thanks, K
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Archie.
I would disagree with your classifications of the prophets and Jesus as humanistic per your description of humanistic religion.
I don’t see, for example, self realization in Jesus’s charge that followers must deny themselves take up a cross and follow. Also, Jesus did not preach on this idea of ‘greatest strength’ when he said that the 1st shall be last and that one must be as a child to enter the kingdom of God.
Also, your authoritarian definition fails to take King David into account. He was a powerful man, submissive to God, but also seemed to love God and dance for Him out of the overflow of his heart, not just submissive obedience.
Do I make any sense?
April 4th, 2009 at 9:37 am
You make perfect sense Joao. The problem with those kind of posts is that people only give you two choices and tell you that you have to choose between those two, when in fact, true Christianity is neither. It’s like asking a married man, “Did you stop beating your wife”. Either answer condemns you and neither is right in most cases.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Ken, I’m curious about what you meant by your choice of the following words about authoritarian religion. I’m not judging, I’m just asking:
“I’m talking about authoritarian religion, if I had to choose between the two that Fromm sets up…
I suppose a great deal depends on the nature of the transcendent power one is surrendering to. He might be referring to a different authoritarian power than I would want to surrender to.”
I’m also interested in your opinion on the following recent, questionable example of authoritarian religion that I just came across:
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/04/afghani-teenage-girl-flogged-in-public.html
“A video showing a teenage girl being flogged by Taliban fighters has emerged from the Swat Valley in Pakistan.. ‘Please stop it,’ she begs, alternately whimpering or screaming in pain with each blow to the backside. ‘Either kill me or stop it now.’ ..The woman’s brother is among the men pinning her down. ‘It’s symbolic that he does it with his own hands. It gives him honour in local society, that he has done it for the sake of religion.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/taliban-pakistan-justice-women-flogging
It gave him honor in his local society that he did it for the sake of religion. It made me shudder to read that..
April 5th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Joao, I liked most of what you said about your “biblical view of religion”, but you said at the end,
“So I am left with a picture that shows me a situation where we have a God who has the right to run an authoritarian regime, but has chosen not to because of His love for us.”
Why do you think that God has the right to run an authoritarian regime? How about not just any authoritarian regime, but an evil authoritarian regime, does God have a right to run that?
April 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Mark, you may not like my answer, but I believe the very concept of God as creator and master of everything must allow for this God to also be free to do as he chooses, no matter how we feel about it.
On a much smaller scale, it’s like me building a car and then figuring out how to treat it. I can race it, just drive it as transportation, only display it in shows or enter it in a smashup derby. It’s mine, it would be absurd to think that somehow I have any obligation to its well being.
I believe the Bible displays a God who created humanity and as such can do whatever he wishes.
The Bible seems to portray this God as being in love with his creation and willing to sacrifice everything for it. But that is his choice, it is not because of some ‘right’ we have. I mean if he created everything, I would think he also created the very concept of right and wrong and the very fact we are capable of thinking something is just or unjust.
It sounds trite and it is not very satisfying to us individualistic and self sufficient westerners, but in the end, I think Paul and others in the Bible have it right in saying that God can do whatever he wants and in the end, we are not in a position to question him, whether what he does seems evil or good to us. Read the very ending of the book of Job for perspective. Despite the horrible things that happened to him in the end you here God telling his side of the story and Job is left speechless. Again, that grates our sensibilities, I will agree with that and I can see how it can cause us to shake out fist at God sometimes.
The good news we see in the Bible, though, is that this God who really did not have to, decided to lower Himself before us for our benefit. All the love see God display is fully voluntary, not some kind of obligation he has towards us.
I once explained the reason we Christians believe Jesus died for our sins to a Muslim and you should have seen his face. It was like he was looking at an alien. He mumbled something like ‘I don’t need to be saved from my sins.’ And I gathered that for a Muslim, God would never lower Himself to our level. That would be too much humiliation.
I hope I am making sense here and am able to communicate what I am thinking properly.
Joao
April 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Hasn’t Evangelical come to mean “a type of Protestant religion”? I have just recently discovered this blog and in reading past posts and comments “Evangelical” is used in a manner that suggests a particular form of Christianity or Religion. Is it? Do evangelicals have a book of beliefs or teachings that someone can read to understand what all evangelicals believe?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Chris, I keep hearing this mantra that religion is the cause of so much evil in the world.
I would like to suggest that it is not religion but human nature. Just look at recent history with Stalin (atheist), Polpot (atheist) and Mao (atheist). How much evil was done in those regimes that had nothing to do with religion ?
April 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Thanks, Joao, for sharing your thoughts. First, I want to be sure that I understand you. Do you believe that God has the right to run an evil authoritarian regime, yes or no?
I’d also appreciate hearing from Ken and anyone else regarding an answer to that same question, does God have the right to run an evil authoritarian regime?
April 7th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Mark1, yes, God can do whatever He wants, run an evil empire if He chooses. I think that is part of the definition of what it means to be God, onmipotent, omniscient, omnipresent , and having complete free will.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
God certainly can do whatever he wishes – He’s God and we’re not. Allowing man to create an evil empire is quite different from his choosing to create something evil. The God we believe in, who is love, can’t create an evil empire without violating His very nature- can He?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
God’s throne is upheld by two pillars – mercy and justice. So I don’t believe that he could run an evil empire. It goes against His very essence. God is love. God is just. God is merciful. Evil doesn’t know love, is not just and shows no mercy. The question shouldn’t be “could” He, but “would” He?
April 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Great posts from everyone! My thoughts:
“I pray God to rid me of God so that I might find God” – so wrote Meister Eckhart, the 14th century
Christian mystic. “Faith is certainty of conviction based on one’s own experience of thought and feeling, not assent to propositions on credit of the proposer” (from Erich Fromm’s description of humanistic religion quoted from Mark 1 above).
Regarding “Evangel”:
I agree with Ken that it is indeed a shame that republican political operatives have usurped the word for their political ends. Nonetheless, it is indeed Good News, then, that Jesus the Reformer, like Meister Eckhart, genuinely sought the truth, and thereby delivered us from an authoritarian god and gave us a more humanistic God; it is Good News that we are free now of the old desert tribal deity named Yahweh who was authoritarian, wrathful, jealous, stern, punishing, belligerent, and arguably evil at times; it is indeed Good News that we now no longer have to be fearfully obsessed with ritual purity and appease this despicable deity with animal sacrifices.
Regarding “Religion”:
I agree with Ken that it is good in an age of alienation, anxiety, and loneliness that we envision “religion” as that which can connect us together and enable us to take care of each other with kindness. As the Dalai Lama said, “My religion is kindness.” And not only to be socially connected, but to be connected within, through inner work, to become integrated and whole, free from the personal fragmentation caused by our neurotic thoughts. Hopefully “religion” will not constrict and suffocate us by “binding” us to dogma and rituals. Jesus the Reformer rejected the authoritarian straight-jacket imposed by the religious dogma of the Pharisees.
Regarding “Love”: I feel that compassion or kindness is a better word than love. I would prefer this – “God is loving-kindness.” The God of the New Covenant, as revealed by Jesus the Reformer, was kind, light, easy, encouraging, accepting, healing, good, compassionate, forgiving and empathetic. Personally speaking, I remember times in my past when I have experienced the kindness of others, and I shall not forget them.
Best of luck to all who endeavor to rescue the above 3 words.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Concerning this quote:it is Good News that we are free now of the old desert tribal deity named Yahweh who was authoritarian, wrathful, jealous, stern, punishing, belligerent, and arguably evil at times; it is indeed Good News that we now no longer have to be fearfully obsessed with ritual purity and appease this despicable deity with animal sacrifices.
Should we just toss out the Old Testament as irrelevant?
I believe Jesus himself was a lover of what we call the old testament, He quoted it quite a bit. This Yahweh was also the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Do I make any sense?
April 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Jonathan, Jesus said “I and the Father are one”. You call the God of the Old Testament “despicable”? I must be honest with you. When I read your post my whole being recoiled. You, in your frail human frame, dare to accuse God? I understand questioning things you don’t understand. But you are railing against the Father. That disturbs me.
Jesus, who you claim as a reformer, said “”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
You misunderstand God and His law. I am a father so I understand the need and safety of rules for the purpose of protecting my children from danger. The law of God protected the children of Israel from disease, sin that denigrates and pollutes the soul and caused them to stand out as different than the nations surrounding them. The law wasn’t evil or harsh. It was good!
April 9th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Well, folks, soon after posting my comment above I felt differently about it later, and felt like I chose the wrong words. Perhaps I was too harsh. Sorry. It’s just that, as I get older, I am overwhelmed with all the violence in the world, and when I read through the old testament my mind again is filled with disturbing violent images. I am almost an ex-christian. I have doubts. I find solace only in the writings of the christian mystics. And yes, I admit there are some beautiful passages about Yahweh in the old testament. I wish there was more beauty and less violence.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Jonathan, I didn’t perceive harsh in your comment, I perceived troubled, which I respect. There are many passages in the Old Testament (and the new for that matter) that we find troubling. God is a complex someone who wrestles with us, if we will wrestled back. I think the Hebrew approach to morality is much different than the Greek approach. We westerners tend to be formed in the latter. Morality is some ideal perfection that is imposed from above in the Greek view. But in the Bible it seems to be different. God starts with humans where we are, which is made from dirt. He gets into the dirt with us and shapes us. We are warlike, and he works with that, and shapes that over time, puts boundaries around it, then directs it further. Same with our selfishness, our wild sexuality, greed, etc. Polygamy leads to monogamy, but it takes a LONG TIME. Slavery leads to freedom, but it takes a LONG TIME. But there is progression, development–otherwise why have such a thing as time which is introduced in the first verse of the Bible? God transcends time, but the God of the Bible is also with us in time. There’s nothing neat and tidy about it, just as there is nothing neat and tidy about us. You might enjoy Genesis: The Beginning of Wisdom, by Leon Kass.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Jonathan,
I feel the same way about some passages in the Bible, especially the story of Job…who cares that God gave him new kids and a home in the end, that does not make up for killing his old kids just for some kind of cosmic bet with Satan.
I think we all have a picture of God that is incomplete and it will never be complete until we meet Him.
I say keep wrestling. Argue, yell at God. I think He prefers that to apathy and ignorance. In some ways, I think, for example, that an Atheist is closer to God than an Agnostic. Usually the Atheist has some past experience that angered them so much towards the idea of God that they simply ‘kill Him off’, so there is some emotional involvement. The Agnostic simply does not care if there is a God or not, I see that as apathy, a ‘deadness’.
So keep arguing, don’t give up!
April 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
MLK was someone who knew a lot about beauty and violence. I’m a little chagrined that because I explored agnosticism during my college years I am only now discovering who he was and what he said. Ken’s reminder about “love your enemy” really shook me up and I did a little internet searching and stumbled upon a speech Reverend King gave on 11/17/1957. Here’s a quote:”I’m foolish enough to believe that through the power of this love somewhere, men of the most recalcitrant bent will be transformed.”
April 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
The three mimes are backwards. How about Love, forming a decent religion, and then evangelicals taking something loving, instead of propagandistic, into the world?
Let’s define love as anything leading to enlightenment. Let’s define enlightenment as a state of divine union brought about by energy, Let’s define energy as Rays or Fields of Divine Consciousness. Let’s dump ego-driven petitionary prayer for meditation that absorbs divine energy so people can actually get some enlightenment, instead of 2 million half-baked teachings….
I guess my issue with this thread is that Christians like playing word games instead of meditating to obtain enlightenment.
This comes from the idiotic belief that we are saved by the thoughts in our heads; instead of the energy (read Grace if you’re old fashioned) in our hearts. Christians I have known have no concept of how Grace or energy accelerates the divine-self (read “new man”, or “pearl of great price”, if you’re old fashioned) until the ego is automatically displaced. They just don’t get the concept.
So everything is backwards, for example, evangelism, religion and last of all, love….
April 12th, 2009 at 1:42 am
crystalpistol
Our center is Jesus, are you familiar with Jesus’ teachings? They are God and other centered, not self centered. Jesus is very clear that without Him we can do nothing. What you describe sounds to me very much an Americanized version of Buddhism.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:54 am
It seems to me the problem with the continued use of these words is the fact that they have become memes. I’m not a social scientist and don’t pretend to understand all the cultural undertones of these words but I know when if I use them they get misinterpreted or I have to do what Ken did and completely explain what I mean by the use of them. NT Wright uses the analogy of a suitcase and how words are like a suitcase where its convenient to carry concepts around in them but sometimes you have to unpack them. The problem with that is that I have to unpack them every time I use them in order for someone to really understand what I’m saying and who I am.
To me, these words have become a barrier to others understanding God for who he really is. They’re just tainted and messy and ultimately harmful (not because of how they’re meant but because of how they’re interpreted).
A good spiritual exercise, in my opinion, is for all of us, for the church and each of us as individuals, to throw out our entire vocabulary and then re-build it. The words we use are incredibly powerful and unfortunately we have no idea what we’re really saying much of the time when we bandy about words that we don’t truly own.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Dave, My problem with your comment is that you might be right!
At least on the first two words.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Joao,
Sorry that I’ve taken so long to reply to your questions…
Can I provide an example of a turning point from my faith in Christ? Nope, I can’t, because it was a very gradual process that took many years.
What drove it? My curiosity drove it. I kept reading all sides, the pros and the cons, of any theological or biblical issue or topic that I was interested in at the time.
What was my primary motivator to follow Christ and go through all I experienced? I was motivated by my Love of Truth. That motivation has led me to remain a theist, but not a Christian.
What event/thought started the cracks in my faith that led to my current opinion concerning the Christian faith? No particular event or thought. My faith in God stayed strong as I used my God-given gift of Reason to better understand the issues and topics that I studied.
My conclusion so far is that God is real, and that Jesus, if he ever existed at all as a flesh-and blood human being, was only a mortal man. I and my family participate in a local spiritual community of theists who are not Christians because I believe in the efficacy and effectiveness that spiritual fellowship and community has on the minds and lives of most people, including me and my family.